I have a question, or challenge to this rule. I have read a lot; and went up against the 0.1 base. According to this post; the exemption given by 1.) If your total war Weight is equal to or less than, value "t".

Is there any way of knowing what the value of "t" is? For example; a th10 who follows the 0.1 strategy will have maxed attack troops; no defenses. According to the logic stated he will have a value "w" that is way less than the value of "t".

Unless the volume of rushed th 10's out weight the 9.5's in the clash world; t should be in the 80-90k range and "w" is below 40k.

Yes. My thought is that the entire post is a complete load of [asterisks]. The site it was copied on has a load of other wrong, totally clueless information about base weights, and they've just made this up as some sort of mad fantasy. SC wouldn't have given this information to them; it doesn't match what we're seeing in wars at all; and it doesn't even make any sense, since the defence weights don't seem to use the 70k/90k/110k scale within the MM - that's just for the loot and bonus the attacker gets.

I'd also add that the phrase 'weight penalty' which seems to floating around dark corners of the interweb over the last few months, seems to me like numerous sources have read the forums discussions on 'weight tax', got confused, played with an abacus while drinking anti-freeze, and thought it a good idea to post the results......hmmmm

Can't say I understand the proposal. Can't say I actually read the whole thing either. But I promise I'll implement it at my earliest opportunity.

Level 10 Adult War Clan METAMUCIL. And some of us are old enough that its not just a funny word...
Metamucil keeps the red out of our logs. Small wars, great record, low pressure.
War Record - https://cocp.it/clan/82GJJV2J

Can't say I understand the proposal. Can't say I actually read the whole thing either. But I promise I'll implement it at my earliest opportunity.

Is this the way to talk to new comers?
He is fresh spawn. He dont know what is going on here since long. And if u think he is talking useless. Then just ignore post.
Senior members should be like seniors.

The site in question does not do a good job of making this info seem reliable. But I have found other sites that follow the same style, that do actually include reliable info, so just because it looks like snake oil doesn't make it so.

The spreadsheets that they provide for people to download do seem consistent. There are small differences between the spreadsheet contents and what the site says, and I trust the spreadsheet more than the site.

One note that I didn't realize at first: the numerical scale they use isn't the same "gold offered" war weight; it goes up to 150k for TH11 because it includes offense as well.

If I had to summarize their position on war weight, it's this: bases that are sufficiently lopsided are weighted like the average base that has the stuff they have. So in other words, your engineered TH10 will draw an opponent who is either a rushed or mid TH10, or another engineered base with the same high offense that incurs the same penalty. With the caveat that the max penalty is 30k, so defenseless TH11s still only draw TH9s, not mid TH11s.

This is pretty close to what we observe. It's within the realm of possibility, given the low sample size of our wars. But given the low sample size of wars, it would be hard to disprove. Any examples that don't fit could be explained away as a mismatch.

If this info were true, how could it have been determined? I think through violating the TOS, or having someone on the inside who violated their NDA, or spying. I don't think these details about the penalty could be determined through statistical analysis. That could explain why the info is unsourced.

If this info were true, what would it mean for lopsided wars? I don't think it would eliminate the low lineup high offense accounts that people complain of. If your #1 is a TH9, then it doesn't matter to you if the enemy's #20 TH11 draws a TH9. It also wouldn't eliminate the advantage of fielding large numbers of .5-ish bases.

If this info were true, it would increase my confidence in supercell's dev team. That makes me kind of hope it is true.

If this info were true, and supercell confirmed it, it would shut down a ton of engineering. Basically everybody would convert their engineered bases to .5s or similarly not-very-lopsided bases. There would still be defenseless, but everything whose defense and offense are within 30k of each other would start building and upgrading defenses. Kind of sad, because that's my favorite kind of engineered base, but it is what it is.

How can we disprove this info? We should try, and if we fail it gives confidence that it is true. Science!

Is this the way to talk to new comers?
He is fresh spawn. He dont know what is going on here since long. And if u think he is talking useless. Then just ignore post.
Senior members should be like seniors.

He posted twice, a month ago. We all ignored it for a month with good reason. You think there's a good reason to necro a fresh spawn's thread, who won't be back to see it?

Level 10 Adult War Clan METAMUCIL. And some of us are old enough that its not just a funny word...
Metamucil keeps the red out of our logs. Small wars, great record, low pressure.
War Record - https://cocp.it/clan/82GJJV2J

How can we disprove this info? We should try, and if we fail it gives confidence that it is true. Science!

I can tell you definitely have put some thought and time into your reply but I'll just comment on the part I quoted. This is actually a logical fallacy. The author would actually need to prove that this is true before we could prove that it is not true.
The sites that I have seen with this same information have also not given any proof or basis for any of this to be factual. Logic!

I can tell you definitely have put some thought and time into your reply but I'll just comment on the part I quoted. This is actually a logical fallacy. The author would actually need to prove that this is true before we could prove that it is not true.
The sites that I have seen with this same information have also not given any proof or basis for any of this to be factual. Logic!

If we can prove it's not true, then we know it's not true. Until then we just suspect it's not true. We don't really know for sure, unless the author admits to making it all up.

It is true that the author and the source site haven't proven it's true. Which doesn't mean it's false.

If it's false, I want to know. It's consistent with my clan's observations, and if it is true, it might affect how I develop bases in the future. Does anybody have observations or experiences that contradict these claims?

One way to disprove it would be to have a war with minimax-ish #1 that succeeds in drawing a below-their-TH opponent. Back in the day, 9.5s used to often draw 9s, and it wasn't suicide to have your #1 be a 9.5, but we all pretty much agree that has changed. Has anybody seen a war recently with a non-.5 engineered base as #1 that successfully drew a weaker opposing #1? Like a 9.11 drawing a 9?

Edit: sorry if I've just talked past what you said. I don't agree that they need to prove it true before we can prove it false. If they prove it true, then it's impossible for us to prove it false. Likewise if we prove it false, it's impossible for them to prove it's true. Right now it is asserted, which gives us not very much proof either way.